Additive manufacturing (AM) processes are increasingly used in dentistry. The underlying process is the joining of material layer by layer based on 3D data models. Four additive processes (laser stereolithography, polymer jetting, digital light processing, fused deposition modeling) are mainly used for processing dental polymers. The number of polymer materials that can be used for AM in dentistry is small compared to other areas. Applications in dentistry using AM are limited (e.g. study models, maxillo-facial prostheses, orthodontic appliances etc.). New and further developments of materials are currently taking place due to the increasing demand for safer and other applications. Biocompatibility and the possibility of using materials not only as temporarily but as definitive reconstructions under oral conditions, mechanically more stable materials where less or no post-processing is needed are current targets in AM technologies. Printing parameters are also open for further development where optical aspects are also important.

Demographic changes in the industrialized countries require that dentists adapt to the growing and heterogeneous group of elderly patients and develop concepts for the dental care of fit, frail, and dependent old and very old people. In general, dental care for old and very old people should be based on their individual everyday life. As a result of demographic changes, improved oral hygiene at home, and the establishment of professional teeth and denture cleaning, tooth loss occurs increasingly in higher ages, which implies that first extensive prosthetic rehabilitation with fixed or/and removable dental prostheses is shifting to a higher average age than ever before. This phenomenon requires that the individual diseases, potential multimorbidity and polypharmacy, and associated limitations are taken into consideration. Against this background, the current survey aims to summarize epidemiological trends associated with tooth loss, using Germany as a highly representative country for demographic changes as an example. Furthermore, the current narrative summary outlines general principles that should be followed in dental care, treatment of geriatric patients, and outlines current therapeutic options in prosthetic dentistry.

Background: The aim of this study was to show the influence of cognitive impairment and dementia on oral health and on the utilization of dental services.Methods: A cross-sectional analyzation of data of the OrBiD (Oral Health, Bite Force and Dementia) pilot study was conducted. 137 subjects were stratified into five dementia groups on the basis of the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) (1—no dementia (MMSE 28–30), 2—mild cognitive impairment (MMSE 25–27), 3—mild dementia (MMSE 18–24), 4—moderate dementia (MMSE 10–17), and 5—severe dementia (MMSE < 10)). Information on the utilization of dental services and oral health parameters (DMFT index, degree of restoration, Periodontal Screening Index, Bleeding on Probing, Oral Hygiene Index, Denture Hygiene Index) were collected.Results: An increase in dementia resulted in significant reduction in utilization. Moreover, with increasing cognitive impairment/dementia there was a significant difference in the number of teeth that were decayed, but not in the number of filled or missing teeth or the DMF/T index itself. With increasing dementia, the degree of restoration decreased and oral/denture hygiene deteriorated significantly. Nevertheless, periodontal therapy was required for all subjects independent of their degree of dementia while bleeding on probing was increasing with increasing dementia.Conclusions: An influence of cognitive impairment and dementia on oral health and on the utilization of dental services was shown. However, no conclusions about the influence of the utilization behavior of people with dementia on oral health parameters can be drawn. Further longitudinal studies are needed.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03775772. Registered 14th December 2018,https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03775772.

Objectives: To analyse the treatment needs of patients who had received dental treatment under GA and the effectiveness of the treatment provided. Materials and methods: Retrospective chart analysis of adult at risk and vulnerable patients requiring dental treatment under GA (2007–2017). Outcome variables were indications for GA, DMF/T, and type of treatment, failure rates of treated teeth, emergencies and recall intervals after GA. Results: Four hundred fourteen subjects (median age 42 years, range 18–93 years) were assigned to four groups (people with disabilities (pwdis), dementias (pwd), dental phobias (pwph), and addictions/psychosocial disorders (pwapd)) and attended the pre-GA assessment. Of these, 247 subjects (median 37 years, range 18–93 years) were treated under GA, mostly pwdis (n = 154, 69.7%). The main indication for treatment under GA was suspicion of pain (n = 178, 72.1%). Pwd had the highest degree of restoration (46.7%), DMF/T value (23.8), and most missing teeth (5.8). Pwapd had the most decayed teeth (12.9). There was a 12-month recall augmented by 2–4 oral hygiene sessions depending on compliance. The failure rate of all treated teeth was 4%. Two dental emergencies were reported for patients who received a GA. Conclusions: Dental treatment need was high for adult vulnerable people. The diagnostic groups differed mainly in their subjective reason for need of a GA, their DMF/T, treatment needs and type of treatments performed. Failure and dental emergency rates after GA were low in spite of a recall interval of 12 months. Clinical Relevance: Regular annual recalls could avoid dental emergencies in patients requiring treatment under GA.

Background: Life expectancy of people with permanent disabilities has increased. The dental care of these vulnerable patients is one of the greatest challenges for the dentist and the dental team due to limited or non-existent cooperation and the associated lack of health competence. In order to be able to provide safe and acceptable, quality dental treatment without psychological and physical stress for these patients, it is therefore necessary to resort to sedation or general anaesthesia (GA) under medical supervision. The aim of the analysis is to highlight the need for dental treatment performed under GA for people with disabilities and the associated indications and treatment patterns. Methods: Ten-year retrospective analysis of outpatient dental care under GA for people with disabilities. Results: Of all adult patients (n = 221) who attended the GA pre-assessment, 69.7% (n = 154) received dental treatment under GA based on the clinical findings or in cases of suspected pain. Most patients received one GA. A total of 205 dental treatment sessions were performed under GA mostly for conservative (n = 442, 52%) and surgical (n = 389, 45.8%) procedures. Endodontic treatment (n = 19, 2.2%) was rare. The failure rate related to all teeth in need of treatment (n = 850) was 5.1% (n = 43), in most cases due to secondary caries (n = 40; 93.0%). Patients were enrolled in an annual recall for dental examination and prophylaxis without GA. Non-compliant patients for whom oral hygiene was impossible received a periodic GA. Conclusion: There is a high need of people with disabilities for dental treatment under GA. Main indications for treatment under GA are dental complaints, pain or suspected pain. Dental care can be successful if, for the benefit of patients with special needs, all carers cooperate closely. Caregivers have to be trained in nutrition control as well as in oral hygiene. These factors in conjunction help to prevent dental emergencies.

To date, no study has investigated the association between chewing function and related parameters as a function of the degree of dementia using a finer subdivision of the values of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). This study aimed to investigate the differences in chewing function and related parameters as a function of the degree of dementia. An analysis of cross-sectional data obtained from the OrBiD (Oral Health, Bite Force, and Dementia) pilot study was performed. The participants were stratified into five groups based on the outcomes of the MMSE (no dementia, MMSE 28-30; mild cognitive impairment, MMSE 25-27; mild dementia, MMSE 18-24; moderate dementia, MMSE 10-17; severe dementia, MMSE <10). The chewing efficiency, maximum occlusal force and related parameters (number of supporting zones, number of teeth, Eichner index, tooth/denture status, denture quality, and dental treatment needs) were recorded. The MMSE groups showed significantly different chewing efficiencies (p = .003, Jonckheere-Terpstra test) and maximum occlusal forces (p = .003, Jonckheere-Terpstra test), but the number of supporting zones (p = .055, chi-square test) and the number of natural teeth (p = .126, chi-square test) were not different. The Eichner index, tooth/denture status, denture quality and dental treatment need showed no significant associations with the degree of dementia. An improvement in the usability of the measurement methods for assessing chewing function in people with dementia is needed. Research involving people with dementia is necessary because the nutritional situation often deteriorates rapidly within a multifactorial system, which includes chewing ability and oral health.